Background
Reshon Lamont Scott appealed a sixty-month sentence imposed after the revocation of his supervised release. Scott argued that the district court impermissibly considered retributive factors under Section thirty-five hundred fifty-three subsection A two A when fashioning the sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that because Scott did not object below, review was limited to plain error. The court found that Scott’s counsel neither objected below nor offered comprehensive briefing. Scott failed to contend or show that the district court clearly or obviously erred. He also failed to mention or address the third and fourth prongs of plain error review. Consequently, the court held that Scott waived these issues and did not satisfy his burden of showing that all four prongs of the plain error standard were met.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that defendants must preserve sentencing objections at the district court level to avoid waiver on appeal, particularly when challenging the consideration of statutory factors.